Ask for Jenny
i can has rite email adress?
I'm not sure why the person with that phone number chose to send me a picture of a cat. Is this one of the Thimons Bros. up to no good?
Friday, August 22, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Goosebumps! GOOSEBUMPS!
World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King Cinematic Trailer.
I want a pet Frostwyrm. And a legion of ghouls.
World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King Cinematic Trailer.
I want a pet Frostwyrm. And a legion of ghouls.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Intellectual Exercise otDWM: Addendum.
In summary of my previous post on gay "marriage", the current debate over whether or not homosexual couples should be granted government-issued marriage licenses is not over whether or not gays have the right to marry (they do; a gay man has the same rights and restrictions to marry as do I) or even whether or not gays should be granted the right to marry whomever they want (and only gays; few are interested in granting polygamists or pedophiles the right to marry whomever they want). Instead, the central issue, at the heart of everything is what is marriage for, and what should the government's involvement be.
Those on the side opposed to gay marriage typically agree with the Catechism's teaching that marriage is the foundation of family life, which itself serves as the initiation into life in society. It "is the community in which, from childhood, one can learn moral values, begin to honor God, and make good use of freedom." They think that the government should protect marriage and grant families special privileges because "Civil authority should consider it a grave duty 'to acknowledge the true nature of marriage and the family, to protect and foster them, to safeguard public morality, and promote domestic prosperity.'"
Those on the side in favor gay marriage tend to think that marriage is something I do because I want to do it and it will make me happy. They think the government should be involved because... well, I don't know why. I have yet to hear a good reason for why the government should be involved in marriage if not because it is specifically in society's best interests to foster it.
But anyways, it is ironic to note that the foundations of the gay rights debate, the philosophy that leads to the thought that marriage is something only to make me happy and serves no other purpose, comes from heterosexual Christians.
As was pointed out in a recent article in First Things: "By giving benediction in 1930 to its married heterosexual members purposely seeking sterile sex, the Anglican Church lost, bit by bit, any authority to tell her other members—married or unmarried, homosexual or heterosexual—not to do the same. To put the point another way, once heterosexuals start claiming the right to act as homosexuals, it would not be long before homosexuals start claiming the rights of heterosexuals. Thus in a bizarre but real sense did [the 1930 Lambeth Conference's] attempt to show compassion to married heterosexuals inadvertently give rise to the modern gay-rights movement—and consequently, to the issues that have divided their church ever since."
The article is entitled "The Vindication of Humanae Vitae" and is a very good read.
I caught the link from the esteemed John C. Wright's live journal, where the most insightful comment was perhaps this one: "Often it is argued that homosexuals are attacking the 'sanctity of marriage' when the initial and decisive blow against the sanctity of marriage occurred during the Sexual Revolution and the normalization of contraceptives by heterosexuals, especially Christians. Few Christians realize how the normalization of contraception is the philosophical lead into gay marriage - because what is the difference between a contracepting heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple? Neither is engaging in sex that is aimed towards procreation."
In summary of my previous post on gay "marriage", the current debate over whether or not homosexual couples should be granted government-issued marriage licenses is not over whether or not gays have the right to marry (they do; a gay man has the same rights and restrictions to marry as do I) or even whether or not gays should be granted the right to marry whomever they want (and only gays; few are interested in granting polygamists or pedophiles the right to marry whomever they want). Instead, the central issue, at the heart of everything is what is marriage for, and what should the government's involvement be.
Those on the side opposed to gay marriage typically agree with the Catechism's teaching that marriage is the foundation of family life, which itself serves as the initiation into life in society. It "is the community in which, from childhood, one can learn moral values, begin to honor God, and make good use of freedom." They think that the government should protect marriage and grant families special privileges because "Civil authority should consider it a grave duty 'to acknowledge the true nature of marriage and the family, to protect and foster them, to safeguard public morality, and promote domestic prosperity.'"
Those on the side in favor gay marriage tend to think that marriage is something I do because I want to do it and it will make me happy. They think the government should be involved because... well, I don't know why. I have yet to hear a good reason for why the government should be involved in marriage if not because it is specifically in society's best interests to foster it.
But anyways, it is ironic to note that the foundations of the gay rights debate, the philosophy that leads to the thought that marriage is something only to make me happy and serves no other purpose, comes from heterosexual Christians.
As was pointed out in a recent article in First Things: "By giving benediction in 1930 to its married heterosexual members purposely seeking sterile sex, the Anglican Church lost, bit by bit, any authority to tell her other members—married or unmarried, homosexual or heterosexual—not to do the same. To put the point another way, once heterosexuals start claiming the right to act as homosexuals, it would not be long before homosexuals start claiming the rights of heterosexuals. Thus in a bizarre but real sense did [the 1930 Lambeth Conference's] attempt to show compassion to married heterosexuals inadvertently give rise to the modern gay-rights movement—and consequently, to the issues that have divided their church ever since."
The article is entitled "The Vindication of Humanae Vitae" and is a very good read.
I caught the link from the esteemed John C. Wright's live journal, where the most insightful comment was perhaps this one: "Often it is argued that homosexuals are attacking the 'sanctity of marriage' when the initial and decisive blow against the sanctity of marriage occurred during the Sexual Revolution and the normalization of contraceptives by heterosexuals, especially Christians. Few Christians realize how the normalization of contraception is the philosophical lead into gay marriage - because what is the difference between a contracepting heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple? Neither is engaging in sex that is aimed towards procreation."
Monday, August 11, 2008
FYI CALIFORNIA HOME SCHOOLERS
From the 8/8/08 ruling of the California Court of Appeals:
I'm not sure what that last, bolded, rather ominous-sounding part means. Otherwise, that passage is pretty good for home schoolers. Here's the link to the full text of the ruling:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878A.PDF
From the 8/8/08 ruling of the California Court of Appeals:
In contrast, California impliedly allows parents to home school as a private school, but has provided no enforcement mechanism. As long as the local school district verifies that a private school affidavit has been filed, there is no provision for further oversight of a home school. It appears that the propriety of any parent’s home schooling will arise only in dependency (or family law) proceedings, as in this case, or in a prosecution for failing to comply with the compulsory education law.
I'm not sure what that last, bolded, rather ominous-sounding part means. Otherwise, that passage is pretty good for home schoolers. Here's the link to the full text of the ruling:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878A.PDF
Thursday, August 7, 2008
In Honor of the 2008 Olympic Games, hosted in Beijing.
An Onion Classic.
Followed by a new classic.
The Beijing Olympics: Are They A Trap?
An Onion Classic.
Followed by a new classic.
The Beijing Olympics: Are They A Trap?
Intellectual Exercise of the Day/Week/Month.
I saw this commercial the other day, while watching TV.
It raised two questions in my mind, without really addressing either one.
Question 1) Is marriage a requirement of love?
(And I'm not talking about the "touchy-feely" love of Valentine's day or Hallmark cards; I'm talking about Real Spousal Love as an act of the will; agape, for lack of a better English term.) If two people love each other, do they need to get married? Do they automatically have a right to get married? Is there any circumstance in which two people who love each other should not get married? Why ought two people who love each other get married? Considering all the legal benefits of marriage are already available without an actual marriage, why do two people need to get married? Is marriage merely something that two people who love each other do? Or is marriage something more? And why get married? If two people love each other, is it not enough that they simply be together, as an increasing number of couples are doing? Why officiate something that is implicitly shared between two people?
Essentially, what is the point of marriage?
Question 2) Is love the only requirement of marriage?
The commercial seems to imply (and maybe I'm misunderstanding it) that some people who love each other aren't allowed to marry and that's a Bad Thing. If I love someone else, is that sufficient reason to marry him (please note: gender-neutral meaning of "him")? Or are there other conditions that must be met for me to marry? Can I marry anyone I love? Can any person marry anyone he loves? Why should the person be of the opposite sex? Why should that person be unrelated to me? If two brothers love each other, ought they marry? Ought they be allowed to marry? (*Winks at Dave* we still have a chance!) Why should that person be of age? If a man loves a twelve-year-old boy, and the boy loves him back, can they marry? Why should I be able to marry only one person? If a woman dearly loves two men, and they love her, why should she be forced to choose between them? Is it not a Bad Thing that she is not allowed to marry one of her True Loves? Why should that person be a person at all? If I love my horse, can I marry that? Ok, horses are just dumb animals. Bad example. But what about dolphins or gorillas? They are intelligent animals, capable of displaying complex emotions. Can I marry one of them? Not even if it displays affection for me?
Essentially, if marriage does not serve a purpose other than to please the two (or more) spouses, what are the, and why are there, restrictions on marriage?
--UPDATE--
Those first two questions led me to a third question. Why should the government be involved in marriage to begin with?
If marriage is only a thing that two or more things that love each other do, why should it be recognized by the government at all? If I want to marry my True Love/brother/twelve-year-old daughter/mistresses/horse, why do I need a piece of paper from the government? Why can I not merely declare my intent to love my chosen partner(s) in front of my close friends, or in front of my partner only? Why should I need written permission or approval from the government? Why would the government even be interested in involving itself?
Essentially, what is the point of a legal marriage, regulated by the government?
--/Update--
Marriage is either something or it is nothing. It either serves a purpose or it does not. It is either an outward sign, a public institution designed to promote the family, create a nurturing environment for the upbringing of children, and enable a society to pass on its wisdom and morals to the next generation, or it is merely a tool used for my personal gratification.
So which is it?
"The family is the original cell of social life. It is the natural society in which husband and wife are called to give themselves in love and in the gift of life. Authority, stability, and a life of relationships within the family constitute the foundations for freedom, security, and fraternity within society. The family is the community in which, from childhood, one can learn moral values, begin to honor God, and make good use of freedom. Family life is an initiation into life in society....
"The importance of the family for the life and well-being of society entails a particular responsibility for society to support and strengthen marriage and the family. Civil authority should consider it a grave duty 'to acknowledge the true nature of marriage and the family, to protect and foster them, to safeguard public morality, and promote domestic prosperity.'
"The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially:
- the freedom to establish a family, have children, and bring them up in keeping with the family's own moral and religious convictions;
- the protection of the stability of the marriage bond and the institution of the family;
- the freedom to profess one's faith, to hand it on, and raise one's children in it, with the necessary means and institutions;
- the right to private property, to free enterprise, to obtain work and housing, and the right to emigrate;
- in keeping with the country's institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits;
- the protection of security and health, especially with respect to dangers like drugs, pornography, alcoholism, etc.;
- the freedom to form associations with other families and so to have representation before civil authority....
"Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment....
"Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God. 'Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human... responsibility.'"
(CCC 2207, 2210, 2211, 2366, 2367)
I saw this commercial the other day, while watching TV.
It raised two questions in my mind, without really addressing either one.
Question 1) Is marriage a requirement of love?
(And I'm not talking about the "touchy-feely" love of Valentine's day or Hallmark cards; I'm talking about Real Spousal Love as an act of the will; agape, for lack of a better English term.) If two people love each other, do they need to get married? Do they automatically have a right to get married? Is there any circumstance in which two people who love each other should not get married? Why ought two people who love each other get married? Considering all the legal benefits of marriage are already available without an actual marriage, why do two people need to get married? Is marriage merely something that two people who love each other do? Or is marriage something more? And why get married? If two people love each other, is it not enough that they simply be together, as an increasing number of couples are doing? Why officiate something that is implicitly shared between two people?
Essentially, what is the point of marriage?
Question 2) Is love the only requirement of marriage?
The commercial seems to imply (and maybe I'm misunderstanding it) that some people who love each other aren't allowed to marry and that's a Bad Thing. If I love someone else, is that sufficient reason to marry him (please note: gender-neutral meaning of "him")? Or are there other conditions that must be met for me to marry? Can I marry anyone I love? Can any person marry anyone he loves? Why should the person be of the opposite sex? Why should that person be unrelated to me? If two brothers love each other, ought they marry? Ought they be allowed to marry? (*Winks at Dave* we still have a chance!) Why should that person be of age? If a man loves a twelve-year-old boy, and the boy loves him back, can they marry? Why should I be able to marry only one person? If a woman dearly loves two men, and they love her, why should she be forced to choose between them? Is it not a Bad Thing that she is not allowed to marry one of her True Loves? Why should that person be a person at all? If I love my horse, can I marry that? Ok, horses are just dumb animals. Bad example. But what about dolphins or gorillas? They are intelligent animals, capable of displaying complex emotions. Can I marry one of them? Not even if it displays affection for me?
Essentially, if marriage does not serve a purpose other than to please the two (or more) spouses, what are the, and why are there, restrictions on marriage?
--UPDATE--
Those first two questions led me to a third question. Why should the government be involved in marriage to begin with?
If marriage is only a thing that two or more things that love each other do, why should it be recognized by the government at all? If I want to marry my True Love/brother/twelve-year-old daughter/mistresses/horse, why do I need a piece of paper from the government? Why can I not merely declare my intent to love my chosen partner(s) in front of my close friends, or in front of my partner only? Why should I need written permission or approval from the government? Why would the government even be interested in involving itself?
Essentially, what is the point of a legal marriage, regulated by the government?
--/Update--
Marriage is either something or it is nothing. It either serves a purpose or it does not. It is either an outward sign, a public institution designed to promote the family, create a nurturing environment for the upbringing of children, and enable a society to pass on its wisdom and morals to the next generation, or it is merely a tool used for my personal gratification.
So which is it?
"The family is the original cell of social life. It is the natural society in which husband and wife are called to give themselves in love and in the gift of life. Authority, stability, and a life of relationships within the family constitute the foundations for freedom, security, and fraternity within society. The family is the community in which, from childhood, one can learn moral values, begin to honor God, and make good use of freedom. Family life is an initiation into life in society....
"The importance of the family for the life and well-being of society entails a particular responsibility for society to support and strengthen marriage and the family. Civil authority should consider it a grave duty 'to acknowledge the true nature of marriage and the family, to protect and foster them, to safeguard public morality, and promote domestic prosperity.'
"The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially:
- the freedom to establish a family, have children, and bring them up in keeping with the family's own moral and religious convictions;
- the protection of the stability of the marriage bond and the institution of the family;
- the freedom to profess one's faith, to hand it on, and raise one's children in it, with the necessary means and institutions;
- the right to private property, to free enterprise, to obtain work and housing, and the right to emigrate;
- in keeping with the country's institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits;
- the protection of security and health, especially with respect to dangers like drugs, pornography, alcoholism, etc.;
- the freedom to form associations with other families and so to have representation before civil authority....
"Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment....
"Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God. 'Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human... responsibility.'"
(CCC 2207, 2210, 2211, 2366, 2367)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)